Good News! Wall Street bonuses up 5.7% - $135 billion

[Terry]

Even after Wall Street's greed nearly collapsed the banking system and forced hundred of billions in taxpayer-funded bailouts, bankers are still finding ways to line their own pockets.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that bonuses at publicly traded banks hit $135 billion in 2010. That's a record high for compensation on Wall Street. It works out to about $141,000 per employee.

This $135 billion represents a 5.7 percent increase in combined compensation for the same group of companies in 2009.

Unlike before the market crash of 2008, Wall Street is taking measures to at least look like it's reformed. The bulk of the increase in compensation is in two areas: increased base salaries and deferred compensation. Both are an attempt to blunt previous criticism of traders taking a "short term" mentality and unwise risk-taking.

http://www.wyattresearch.com/article/wall-st....

[Jeff Phillips]

And your solution is....?

[Terry]

Jeff Phillips wrote:

And your solution is....?

I bet you like at least one of my answers...

Two options:
1. Much like the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution... no political campaign contributions should be made by any financial institutions to political campaigns.
It's a conflict of interests*.

1.2 I would also include all unions in that.

2. Let them default.
(but make no mistake about it, taxpayers would still pick up the enormous bill left behind regardless).

What did Bush Jr. and Obama give us as their alternative?
Answer: We have to bail them out so we can get the massive campaign contributions that come from the financial sector...
*a sector that government put in place.
And, precisely why it financial failings will continue to happen in the future.

What does the Republican and Democratic Party's give as alternatives?
Answer: They don't because it's a trough they feed from.

I would also add one very important point:
if the financial industry was completely de-regulated as some Libertarians would like; the accumulation of wealth by the financial industry would make the Great Depression and the "Financial Crisis" look like a walk in the park on a sunny afternoon.

At that point, the U.S. would have large scale demonstrations and riots and ironically, the Libyan government could then say how bad the U.S. was for telling it's Army and hiring mercenaries to shoot it's own citizens.

You had Libertarianism at the beginning of the country.
You had the guns.
You had the power.
You had everything.
You lost it for perfectly valid reasons.
You were greedy and no sense of the larger social network that allowed it in the first place, but felt slighted with injustice of their sacrifice afterwords.

---
In 1791, which was after the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the government granted the First Bank of the United States a charter to operate as the U.S.'s central bank until 1811.
Unlike the prior attempt at a centralized currency, the increase in the federal government's power granted to it by the constitution allowed national central banks to possess a monopoly on the minting of U.S currency.
Nonetheless, The First Bank of the United States came to an end under President Madison when Congress refused to renew its charter.
The Second Bank of the United States met a similar fate under President Jackson.
Both banks were based upon the Bank of England.
Ultimately, a third national bank known as the Federal Reserve was established in 1913 and still exists to this day.
---

[Terry]

Terry wrote:

<quoted text>
I bet you like at least one of my answers...
Two options:
1. Much like the separation of church and state clause in the Constitution... no political campaign contributions should be made by any financial institutions to political campaigns.
It's a conflict of interests*.
1.2 I would also include all unions in that.---

I forgot to add another provision to that;
I also would make it illegal for any corporation or company to contribute to political campaigns.
On top of that, I would make it illegal for overseas interests to contribute.

I don't care what individuals do with political contributions, but corporations are not an individual and no monies should come from a collective like that in any form.
It's also a way for a head of a company to contribute twice for his own self interest while undermining other employees wages or corporate infrastructure improvements.
Your interest is really of no concern to them.

If politicians want to get elected, then let them earn it through the U.S. individual citizenry base.

[Jeff Phillips]

Terry wrote:

<quoted text>
I forgot to add another provision to that;
I also would make it illegal for any corporation or company to contribute to political campaigns.
On top of that, I would make it illegal for overseas interests to contribute.
I don't care what individuals do with political contributions, but corporations are not an individual and no monies should come from a collective like that in any form.
It's also a way for a head of a company to contribute twice for his own self interest while undermining other employees wages or corporate infrastructure improvements.
Your interest is really of no concern to them.
If politicians want to get elected, then let them earn it through the U.S. individual citizenry base.

The Supremes ruled last year that corporations could contribute to political campaigns.

And who were the biggest contributors? Unions. Because they are corporations just like IBM. And we are now seeing the result of those corporate contributions. The head of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumke, is the biggest visitor to the White House with 3 visits a week. So yes, a millionaire corporate executive gets to tell the President what to do.

[Terry]

Jeff Phillips wrote:

<quoted text>
The Supremes ruled last year that corporations could contribute to political campaigns.[QUOTE]

Not just that, but they ruled that foreign corporations could contribute.
And who was in the Supreme Court majority that ruled that way?
Answer: Conservatives.

[QUOTE} And who were the biggest contributors? Unions. Because they are corporations just like IBM. And we are now seeing the result of those corporate contributions. The head of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumke, is the biggest visitor to the White House with 3 visits a week. So yes, a millionaire corporate executive gets to tell the President what to do.

True.
But what you're not telling everyone is that unions contribute far and away *less* than big oil, big pharma, big defense, and other big corporate institutions.
So naturally, you want to protect those big corporate interests while complaining about the far smaller contributing unions.

You're a pawn Jeff.

You never did address why I'm on Obama's side even though I didn't vote for him.
I'll wait.